Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Cost Reduction and Revenue Enhancement Strategies Benjamin F. Quillian, EVC and CFO Ephraim P. Smith, EVC and CAO Gail Brooks, VC, HR Robert Turnage, AVC.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Cost Reduction and Revenue Enhancement Strategies Benjamin F. Quillian, EVC and CFO Ephraim P. Smith, EVC and CAO Gail Brooks, VC, HR Robert Turnage, AVC."— Presentation transcript:

1 Cost Reduction and Revenue Enhancement Strategies Benjamin F. Quillian, EVC and CFO Ephraim P. Smith, EVC and CAO Gail Brooks, VC, HR Robert Turnage, AVC Budget

2 2 Alternatives… Are developed in context of: Lingering structural deficits from prior state cuts Possible $200 million trigger cut in Are provided as a wide range of preliminary strategies, to seek feedback and thoughts May be deemed impractical, or not preferable, for a variety of reasons

3 3 Discussion Framework CSU’s “core business” of a broadly accessible, quality education should be maintained as much as possible Since it is not feasible to do everything, we need to eliminate activities/functions that are no longer useful, or in demand, or that are cost-prohibitive Resources should be invested in projects and programs that anticipate the future needs of students

4 4 COST REDUCTION STRATEGIES Benefits and Challenges

5 5 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Consolidation of Services Fewer managers and staff and reduction in duplication of services Efficiencies through economies of scale Avoids deeper impacts to educational programs Efficiencies and savings require case- by-case analysis Change management Relocation of expertise Sharing administrative functions currently duplicated across the system

6 6 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Closure of Campuses Significant ultimate savings Displacement of thousands of students and employees Loss of regional higher education access Property, debt and contractual complications Many years to implement Political barriers

7 7 BENEFITSCHALLENGES High-Tuition Institutions/Programs State resources could be reallocated Relieves selected campuses or programs from many operational restrictions Limits access based on financial means Likely to impact STEM- heavy campuses and programs Depends on substantial external financial support Reach agreement with Sacramento to maintain funding level Charter campuses or programs supported by higher tuition instead of full state support

8 8 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Discontinuation of Certain Academic Programs Frees resources for high- demand, cost-effective programs Allows needed programs to continue “regionally” Opportunity for regional review of low demand programs Time to review and then implement Impacts program faculty and students during phase out Phasing out low-enrolled and/or high-cost academic programs

9 9 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Specialization of Campuses Greater specificity and focus by campus Higher quality in fewer disciplines Some programs already shared (e.g. DNP, PSM) Moves away from the mission of access for “place-bound” students Multi-year implementation period Disruption for students and faculty Change campuses from comprehensive to specialized

10 10 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Larger Class Sizes Cost savings from fewer faculty teaching more students Students continue to have access to classes to graduate into the workforce Impacts teaching demand and learning outcomes Could widen achievement gap for underrepresented minorities Increasing student-faculty ratio by raising average class size

11 11 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Increases in Faculty Workload Potentially significant cost savings from reduced need for part-time faculty Students continue to have access to classes to graduate Limits to extent this can be done: Within current terms of collective bargaining agreement Without impacts to research, advising, mentoring and academic initiatives Tenured and tenure-track faculty teaching more courses

12 12 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Reduction of Sabbaticals Cost savings from reduced need for replacement faculty Students continue to have access to classes Some limits to implementation, based on collective bargaining agreement Some reduction in opportunity for faculty professional development

13 13 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Change in Employer/Employee Share of Health Care Premiums Potential annual cost reduction $70 million Reduces impact of cuts to student access Reduces extent of layoffs Conforms to cost-share practice throughout California state government Requires collective bargaining Impacts employee morale CSU employees have gone years without general salary increase

14 14 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Reductions in Pay Potentially major cost reduction to help address trigger cut Could be made contingent on trigger cut Reduce impact of cuts to student access Reduce extent of layoffs Requires collective bargaining Impacts employee morale CSU employees have gone years without general salary increase General reductions in pay for faculty, staff and administrators

15 15 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Reductions in Enrollment Preserves quality for enrolled students Helps address structural deficit Wait-listing Fall 2013 is flexible way to help address impact of trigger on Diminishes access and turns away CSU-qualified applicants Savings require job losses for faculty, staff and administrators Loss of tuition revenue offsets roughly half of spending reduction Aligning student numbers with state funding

16 16 REVENUE ENHANCEMENT STRATEGIES Benefits and Challenges

17 17 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Addition of a Third Tier to Tuition Structure Provides fair access to a 15-unit course load for all students Will change student behavior and increase access to courses Students may graduate sooner by choice Could impede faster time to degree for some students Charging more for students taking more than 16 units

18 18 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Adoption of Incentive Fees Provides financial incentive for student performance and timely completion Frees seats for other students to have access to the CSU Enhanced counseling services for students Added fees for “super seniors”

19 19 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Adoption of Incentive Fees Fee starts with second repeat Provides financial incentive for student performance and timely completion Frees seats for other students Potential to affect retention of lower- performing students Added fees for multiple class repeats

20 20 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Increases in Master’s-level Tuition Fees Reflects higher cost of graduate programs In line with long- standing trustee policy Does not impact undergraduates CSU graduate enrollment already in slight decline Gradual change in graduate tuition fee relative to undergraduate, from current 123% to 150%

21 21 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Increases in Nonresident Tuition Revenue could be increased over several years by raising nonresident rates and/or enrollment Helps subsidize and preserve programs for California students Could make recruitment of these students more difficult Added resources from out-of-state and international students

22 22 BENEFITSCHALLENGES Variation of Tuition Rates by Campus Added resources for instruction and student services at all campuses May reduce enrollment pressure on highly impacted campuses Could penalize “place- bound” students in regions with high-cost and high- demand campuses Could create sense of inequity; resistance to paying more while revenues shared with other campuses Creating “market demand” tuition rates, sharing revenue across system

23 23 UNDERSTANDING THE TRADE-OFFS

24 24 CSU’s Budget Dilemma CSU’s budget dilemma has two parts: Ongoing structural deficits from prior state cuts Possible $200 million trigger cut Structural deficits must be resolved over time, even if trigger cut avoided Some options lend themselves to addressing structural deficits; others better suited to address trigger cut Trigger cut poses the most difficult trade-offs

25 25 Key Aspects of the Trigger Cut The trigger cut is a contingency; therefore options to address it can be made contingent on the trigger being “pulled” However, if trigger pulled, CSU will have lost 39 % of its state support, and austerity for CSU will likely endure for several years Large dollar reductions needed to add to $200 million No single option can produce $200 million; it must be a “mix” of multiple options Options that can address trigger are all difficult and require sacrifices

26 26 Understanding the Trade-offs 85 % of CSU Operating Fund expenditures are for salaries and benefits of faculty and staff Thus, if $200 million must be addressed entirely by spending reductions, then in one form or another the cuts must involve reduced spending on CSU’s payroll Enrollment reductions only reduce spending by reducing the number of faculty, staff and administrators employed Enrollment reductions can be moderated, but only through difficult trade-offs that reduce payroll spending in other ways and in large amounts

27 27 Comments and Questions? A copy of this webcast will be posted at: /presentations-communications/1112- sbac-announcement.shtml


Download ppt "Cost Reduction and Revenue Enhancement Strategies Benjamin F. Quillian, EVC and CFO Ephraim P. Smith, EVC and CAO Gail Brooks, VC, HR Robert Turnage, AVC."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google